Google Buzz Gmail Fails Against Facebook & Twitter
Google’s recent attempt to crack the social networking market comes courtesy of an ill-conceived service titled Google Buzz. The idea is that that Buzz provides similar status updates, and shared links, and so on, right inside of your Google email account. Of course, it is this very concept that dooms Google Buzz to failure, and casts a wide shadows of doubt upon the company’s once legendary ability to understand what users want and deliver useful innovation to the web.
Google Buzz Flaw
The primary flaw with Google Buzz is, ironically, the feature that the company is most proud of, it’s tight integration with Google Mail.
The privacy advocates have thrown up a hundred red flags as Google rolled out Buzz, and the company seemed a bit unprepared for the backlash. More tellingly, it seemed to be completely caught off guard by the problems that were pointed out, as evidenced by the numerous changes it made to the platform just days after it was unveiled.
The only explanation is that Buzz was built by Google, inside of Google, by Googlers, who are advanced and dedicated users of all things Google. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, except for when that it means that "within Google" is no longer in sync with the world outside of Google. Of course, a ten-year Google employee has no problem linking together all of his Google services. He’s probably been doing it through other means for years. Likewise, he is only too happy to have another way for friends, family, and co-workers to find all of this stuff that he put out there on the Internet for all to see.
However, out here, in the 99.99999999% of the world that is not inside of Google headquarters, we have lives that are not universally linked. Most people have families, friends, co-workers, co-workers who are friends, colleagues who are acquaintances, but not necessarily friends, bosses, ex-girlfriends, and ex-boyfriends, and ex-wives and ex-husbands. Some of us have kids, grandkids, and great-grandkids. Likewise, some of us have parents, grandparents, and maybe even great-grandparents. For each of these groups of people, there are undoubtedly sub-groups, ranging from conservative to liberal, political to non-political, religious and not, those who enjoy British humor and those who think it is stupid, and on, and on, and on.
The point of all this is that in our lives we are not interested in blending all of these layers together. The Wednesday drinking buddy would laugh hilariously as the cartoon we found, while the dad from our kid’s play dates would be horribly offended. Surely, this is the point of lists and groups, but there is more.
Email vs. Social Networking or Gmail vs. Facebook
Which brings us to the fundamental misunderstanding that makes Buzz a non-starter. Who we email, and who we tweet, update, and share with, are not the same.
The super-techie types and the super-marketing types may insist that the power of social networking websites like Facebook and services like Twitter comes from being able to interact with your whole network all of the time. However, the vast majority of those of us who make up Facebook’s 400 million users are neither.
We only link to certain friends and contacts. We shudder when our Great Aunt Matilda sends us a friend request. We don’t want our contact list to be our friends list.
In other words, while my Google Address Book bursts at the seems with people I met at a conference two years ago, and who from time to time, I do send emails too, I am not interested in those people seeing pictures of my kids, my new barbeque, or where my tickets are for Buffs home games. Frankly, I’m not interested in hearing about those things from them either.
If Google wants to play in this space, they have to acknowledge what everyone else has already figured out. The web is not all just one big thing. That’s why social networking is often called Web 2.0. It is different than the "regular" Internet of websites, searches, and emails, and we like it that why.
Incidentally, if it is any consolation to the search engine king, this same concept is why, for all of its attempts and numerous re-designs, Facebook search and Facebook email is doomed to failure for anything outside of the Facebook environment. While I might love to hear what my buddy Frank has to say about his new high-definition LCD TV, I don’t care what he thinks about the benefits of knee surgery, spas in Crested Butte, or where to take my children for their birthdays.
Facebook and Google, social networking, and the regular Internet are all different, and never the two shall meet.
Amazon Affiliates Shuts Down Twitter and Link Shorteners
Update: It seems that Amazon is going out of its way to make me look foolish 
Just kidding. Actually, just got an email update, partially excerpted below, from the Amazon Associates folks about a new way that the affiliate program will integrate directly with Twitter. Basically, it makes the rest of this post moot, but if you want to read, go nuts
The Share on Twitter feature is easy to use. Simply log in to your Amazon Associates account and then visit any detail page on Amazon.com. By clicking on the Share on Twitter button in the Site Stripe, a new window will open and an Amazon-generated message is pre populated in the ‘What are you doing?’ text area of your Twitter account (you may be asked to log in to your Twitter account). That message will include a shortened URL that already includes your Associates ID. You’ll have the option to edit this message or simply hit the ‘Update’ button to post to your Twitter account. When Twitter users click on the link in your post and make a qualifying sale, you’ll earn referral fees. That’s it.
A bit of a rumble making its way around the Blog-o-Go-Round regarding Amazon’s denial of commission payments for sales made via links shortened and then posted to Twitter.
There are many different ways to make money using the Internet. One of the most common is by enrolling in what is known as an affiliate program. Basically, “affiliate program” is an euphemism for getting commissions for sales or traffic that you generate by linking to the website or products of the selling website.
Amazon Associates is the brand name of Amazon’s affiliate program which pays commissions to people who refer buyers to Amazon’s website via links. In the Utopian version of this referral program, people sign up to become Amazon Associates and then link to various Amazon products that they recommend or endorse based upon either personal experience or research. In the real world version of the program people try numerous ways to game the system, oftentimes providing links either indiscriminately, or deceptively.
Of course, such trickery is only valuable to those in it for the quick buck. The Internet Marketer (another euphemism) doesn’t really care if the person who follows the link feels like they were treated well, or honestly, as long as they buy something after they follow that link to Amazon. Amazon feels differently, and for good reason. They are a multi-billion dollar business that depends, in no small part, on its overall reputation as a legitimate online retailer for sales.
Consider the number of people willing to pay a few dollars, to many dollars more for a given product in order to buy it from Amazon, instead of some other website that they have never heard of before. Couple this with free shipping for orders over $25 and the trust that people have about Amazon’s return policies and you have one of the only ways possible to defend against smaller cheaper competitors.
I, myself, routinely shop around online using a variety of websites, tools, and just plain old Google searches of the shopping type and to a lesser extent Microsoft shopping searches that offer cash back. In the end, however, unless the price difference, including shipping, is at least ten bucks or more, I’ll just buy it from Amazon. It is worth the extra money to avoid the potential hassles of not knowing whether or not that other online store is a good one or not.
Twitter, Link Shorteners, and Scams
Amazon has decided to not pay affiliates who link to their products via links that have been shortened. There are multiple reasons for this, but the main one is that by shortening a link, it conceals what the link is, and where it goes. It may be the case that most people don’t watch the status bar when they mouse over the a link to see where the link goes, but for those who do, a shortend link is a unknown link.
Another reason Amazon is not too keen on shortened links is that the destination of those links can be modified at will. The idea behind Amazon’s program is not to link to Amazon whenever their commission is the highest, or there is a hot product available, but rather to link to products and pages as part of a bona-fide recommendation.
Obviously, making arguments against these points is difficult. However, those opposed to the Amazon policy to not pay commissions for referrals via short links have finally found their rallying cry. As with all unsavory things, it is necessary to find a squeaky clean example to lead the protest, otherwise, people just tune out the cries of the “gray area” crowd as the whining of people who are getting what they deserve.
For the no short-links policy, the rally point is Twitter. Since Twitter messages, or tweets, must be a relatively short 140 characters or less, a full Amazon link including the associate ID or affiliate ID is pretty much out of the question. The only answer, for these clean cut, all-American, Twitter folks is to use a link shortener for their earnest, well qualified recommendations.
The reality is that the vast majority of Twitter users spewing out affiliate links via short links are exactly the kind of hucksters that Amazon doesn’t want using its program in the first place. Twitter’s number one danger for becoming a second-rate, spam only, destination, on the Internet is the number of charlatans using the service to find suckers customers. The traffic they send is less likely to convert, and worse, more likely to complain.
Of course, there are those who make legitimate recommendations via Twitter. They would have to use link shorteners as well. However, even they, have a bit of a weak spot. The idea that Amazon considers something like, “I love these new Chewy Chips Ahoy Cookies – http://bit.ly/NOTAREALLINK” to be one of the ways they want to get traffic to its site isn’t very convincing. Sure, publicity is good, and so are well-meaning referrals, but Amazon knows that whatever good these limited cases might bring, it pales in comparison to the negatives the vast majority of link shortened links provide.
In the end, the Amazon policy is better for the “straight” Amazon Associates membership, better for Amazon, and better for Amazon’s customers. It stings the sneaky, weasel, membership right where it hurts by taking away one of their most prevalent tricks. It may catch a handful of good guys along the way, but I think given real unbiased consideration, without the emotional attachment of a missed commission, even they would approve.
RTwE Means Re-Tweet With Edits
I can’t ever properly Re-Tweet a truly interesting Tweet. That is because truly interesting tweets come from people who care about Tweeting interesting things. That means they don’t necessarily care about chopping their tweet down small enough to be re-Tweetable like those who care more about getting exposure and re-tweets than putting up interesting things in the first place.
Furthermore, a truly interested Re-Tweet often requires comment. For example, why you chose to Re-Tweet, or because you want to draw attention to a particular piece of the Re-Tweet. Either way, I’m tired of trying to make it work and worrying that someone might take offense.
Thus, I hereby declare that RTwE shall evermore stand for Re-Tweet With Edits.
So, if you have to trim a Tweet in order to either A) just be able to re-tweet it at all, or B) to be able to make a comment on the original tweet, then you can put RTwE instead of the usual RT in your Tweet.
For those of you who don’t want people to comment on your Tweets, then either we’ll make our own short-URL and just do a Tweet without giving you credit, or we’ll just jam your username in at the end. Either way, I have no intention of just parroting what someone else says. What is the point of that?
If you’ll excuse me, I’m off to update the Wikipedia page.
Twitter – Critical Social Networking App or Next Big Nothing?
The guys over at the Blog Herald have a nice big headline saying that Top Tech Brand’s Don’t Get Twitter. Then, they say nothing, and point to a “study” at Pingdom which notes that 67 of the top tech companies don’t have a “main” Twitter account registered in their name. Shocking!
Or is it?
Sometimes, it seems as though bloggers and other semi-media types have a vested interest in Twitter being a big deal. Actually, they have a very big interest in Twitter being a big deal because they have spent valuable time and resources developing and “perfecting” a Twitter strategy that includes getting tons of followers, pitching their articles via links to their Twitter followers, and so on.
What Can Twitter Do For You Today
I follow Starbucks Coffee on Twitter. I don’t have any idea what any of their tweets have said. I simply don’t have time to read all of the Tweets every day, and the first ones I skip are the corporate ones, and I’m not alone. The thing is, I’m very Internet savvy and spend almost my entire work day online and at a PC. But, I’m busy. Chatting, PMing, webcams, and so on, don’t have a big place in my schedule.
What the echo chamber that has become the blogosphere or Web 2.0, or whatever you want to call it has forgotten is that the vast majority of life and business in this country is not done via the Internet. While online shopping has become a big point of commerce, that is less about people shopping BECAUSE of the Internet, and more about people USING the Internet to do a specific task. The average guy heading to Amazon.com doesn’t necessarily stop by Twitter first.
Just because a freelance designer spends 14 hours a day in front of a computer screen doesn’t mean everyone does. In fact, there are millions of people who spend less than an hour a day at a computer (GASP!). Do they bother to Tweet and Twitter? Do they have Facebook accounts? The reality is that they do email, news, shopping, and maybe porn. The rest, they don’t know or care about.
And, while it may seem that everyone does Twitter and that Twitter is everywhere, it is still, for the most part, a community of younger people and technology people. Ask yourself, how many new accounts come from Oprah announcing that she would be starting Twitter. The number will be huge, and most of those people will never end up following anyone but Oprah.
What that should show you, is that no matter how big you think Twitter is right now, it is nothing compared to the truly big media out there.
What would a similar list look like for the top 100 law firms, the top 100 agricultural companies, or the top 100 manufacturing companies? Would even 20% of those companies have a Twitter account?
The point that Blog Herald and Pingdom are trying to make is that Twitter is a big up-and-coming technology right now, and that as tech companies, these particular entities should be out in front with their own Twitter accounts. But, the question is, to what end?
In the non-Internet based media, articles about Twitter focus on how it can be an effective tool for customer service, with everyone finding some case study where an employee defended his company’s brand via Tweets and responses to critical Tweets. This is a good thing and can be considered a good effort.
On the other hand, companies spend millions of dollars a year on customer service departments, dedicated phone lines, and numerous other types of dedicated support infrastructure. Is chasing down every unflattering Tweet the best use of a company’s resources?
Certainly, some level of monitoring and responding is desirable, but where does it end? Should there also be someone monitoring Facebook? What about LinkedIn? Google Groups? Yahoo Buzz? Digg?
The list is practically endless. While the authors of these articles can point to the large number of Twitter users to justify their arguments, the fact remains that the majority of Twitter users do attempt to create mass-follower lists, nor do they follow corporations or pseudo-celebrities of the Internet. They have 5, 10, or even 25 followers representing, wait for it…their actual friends!
Can a company be blamed then for not spending any resources on the latest Internet phenomenon? Actually, shouldn’t they be commended? Don’t forget, it wasn’t long ago when all of the same Internet influenced media and money people were convinced that content was worthless and portals would be king. That kind of thinking led Time Warner to sell itself to AOL, perhaps one of the most disastrous corporate deals in history.
The authors at Pingdom raise the specter of Twitter name squatting as though that were a critical motivator. IF Twitter were to ever become something important on that large of scale, there would obviously be ways to worry about that when the time came. Look no further than the former domain name squatters who were kicked off via copyrights, trademarks, new policies, and even new laws when the Internet itself actually became big enough to be truly important to business. The same can be expected if Twitter rises to such a level.
In the meantime, there is little a major company can hope to achieve on Twitter other than some positive PR and with most companies already waging all out assaults on many fronts in the name of public relations would can only wonder how incremental any improvement made via Twitter would be. Considering the many loud mouthed hot air factories that insist their way is the only way and deride any comments made to the contrary, ESPECIALLY those from an official company account, Twitter might actually only be able to hurt a company’s image, not help it.
*
*
